JUMMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Jumma has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2008 rendered by Mr. Nalin Kant Tyagi, Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 1, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 685 of 2007 (State Vs. Jumma), whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 307 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a term of three months. Learned trial court has further convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 393 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months. THE learned trial court has further directed that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the injured Smt. Mehrun Nisha, out of the fine recovered from the appellant.

(2.) THE prosecution story leading to this appeal is that the appellant Jumma had done painting work in the complainant's house, having three storey, and that work continued for about four months and as such the appellant had located the rooms where the complainant had kept valuable articles, jewelleries and cash amounts and used to try to enter into those rooms with one pretext or the other during the period he worked in the house of the complainant. Due to this activities of the appellant, the complainant had required him about twenty days prior to the occurrence not to work in his house. On 16.04.2007, the complainant's children had gone to the school at about 7.30 A.M. and the complainant had also gone elsewhere at about 8.00 A.M. and his wife Smt. Mehrun Nisha was all alone in the house. At about 8.45 A.M., the appellant Jumma came to the house of the complainant and informed his wife that he was sent by the complainant, so she opened the door and proceeded to the first floor of the house. THEreafter the appellant caught hold of the wife of the complainant and assaulted her with the blunt portion of a banka with the intention to cause her death, however, the complainant's wife any how managed to free herself from the clutches of the appellant. On hearing noise, witnesses Bilal Ahmad, Rizwanur Rehman and Mohd. Nasim and others arrived at the place of occurrence and entered into the house of the complainant after crossing over the roof of adjoining house. THE said Bilal Ahmad and others any how apprehended the appellant by beating him up. It is also stated that the wife of the complainant was taken to a government hospital forthwith, while the appellant remained in the custody of the neighbours inside the house of the complainant.

(3.) THE learned trial court framed the charges under sections 307 and 393 I.P.C. against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. THE prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges. PW-1, Mohd. Islam is the complainant who has proved the first information report Ext. Ka-1 and further supported the story of deployment of the appellant for painting purposes and his expulsion from the job. PW-2, Smt. Mehrun Nisha is the injured. She has supported the prosecution story in the witness box and has also proved the weapon banka (material Ext-1) and the cloth material Ext-2 in which banka was sealed. PW-3, Bilal Ahmad and PW-4, Rizwanur Rehman are the neighbours of the complainant, who had arrived at the place of occurrence. THEse two witnesses have also supported the prosecution story including the story of spot arrest of the appellant. PW-3, Bilal Ahmad has further stated that it was he, who had taken the first information report to the police station.